Pubdate: Thu, 21 Mar 2013
Source: Oklahoman, The (OK)
Copyright: 2013 The Oklahoma Publishing Co.
Contact: http://www.newsok.com/voices/guidelines
Website: http://newsok.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/318
Page: 6A

State Efforts to Ignore Federal Laws

NULLIFICATION BILLS ARE WASTE OF PUBLIC'S TIME

WHILE the debate over state efforts to nullify federal laws has often 
focused on Obamacare, both liberal and conservative individuals have 
promoted nullification.

The Pew Charitable Trusts notes 13 states are openly defying federal 
drug law by allowing medical marijuana, plus Colorado and Washington 
have legalized the drug for straight-up recreational use. So liberals 
who loudly decry Obamacare nullification efforts are silent on this 
front. Yet if attempts to nullify Obamacare through state action are 
illegitimate - or even racist, as liberal critics claim - isn't the 
same thing true of efforts to negate federal drug law?

The Obama administration continues to defend federal drug laws, just 
as it defends Obamacare. How can nullification efforts against one 
policy be construed as a racist attack against the nation's first 
black president if the other is not? The answer, of course, is that 
liberals in general are less supportive of the war on drugs, but they 
love Obamacare. Nullification, in their eyes, is bad only if it goes 
after a law they cherish.

We take another view: Nullification efforts are irresponsible 
regardless of what laws are targeted. A bill just passed by the 
Oklahoma House of Representatives makes that point. House Bill 1021 
declares Obamacare is "not authorized" by the U.S. Constitution and 
violates that document's "true meaning and intent as given by the 
founders and ratifiers."

The legislation declares the federal law "invalid" and "considered 
null and void and of no effect in this state." There's just one small 
problem: You can't overturn a federal law with a state law. Period.

What citizens and states can do is challenge the constitutionality of 
federal laws through the court system. Unfortunately for opponents of 
Obamacare - and we are firmly in that camp - the U.S. Supreme Court 
has upheld the law. In our system of government, the Supreme Court is 
the final arbiter of constitutionality. The court can be wrong, and 
has made some famously bone-headed decisions in the past (like the 
Dred Scott case). But the path to a correction runs through the court 
in subsequent cases, allowing for reversal of earlier decisions. 
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is currently pursing such a 
path by challenging different Obamacare provisions than those covered 
in the earlier case.

Furthermore, HB 1021 contains no actual enforcement mechanisms. And 
if some are added, who will be targeted? Because of the federal law's 
mandates, insurance companies are now required to sell family 
policies covering children up to age 26 as dependents. Do Oklahoma 
lawmakers think local insurance agents should be fined or jailed for 
selling those policies? Should Oklahomans have to choose which set of 
laws to follow - state or federal - and run the risk of prosecution either way?

The embrace of HB 1021 contrasts sharply with the treatment given 
Senate Bill 710 by Sen. Constance Johnson, D-Oklahoma City. Her bill 
would have legalized the use of medical marijuana in Oklahoma - an 
attempted nullification of federal drug law. That bill failed on a 
5-2 committee vote.

Senators should give HB 1021 the same treatment, either killing it 
outright or simply refusing to hear it. Nullification efforts, 
whether touted by liberals or conservatives, are bad public policy. 
Worst of all, they waste resources that would be better expended 
trying to legitimately repeal bad laws - such as Obamacare.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom